Chris: Not much public feedback
yet on Core document, beyond Jeremy's typos
... Everyone in working group should be announcing release of
first working draft to colleagues, should be sent to mailing
list, etc.
... If anyone knows of appropriate place to announce release of
working draft, we should;

<sandro>

Sandro: Wiki page called
Outreach, where people should list organizations to which to
send documents to.

Chris: good record to remember
what was done last time wrt annoncements. Also helps prevent
overlap.

<Harold> Perhaps we should
combine the WD1 announcement with a reminder: Please Comment By
27 April 2007

Sandro: We have less than 10 days
left to the comment period.

Chris: We will still accept
comments beyond that date, but ina process date, we are not
obliged to respod to such comments.

Issue 30 --- RIF:URI in the core spect

Chris: some discussion last week,
and there's been email follow-up

C

Chris: Michael, Harold, and Dave,
summarize the discussion. Are we near consensus yet?

Harold: Summary: everyone is fine
with URIs.
... my own opinion: in the unlikely event that the web changes
from URIs, all groups will need to change.

<Francois> +q

<Harold> I think we can call
it rif:iri

Chris: anyone who disagrees that
we should use IRI instead of URI in the spec?

Francois: IRIs shouldn't be
referred to as resources, but as pointers.

<sandro> PROPOSED: We'll use
IRIs

Chris: proposing to close Issue
30 by agreeing to use IRIs instead of URIs everywhere in core
spec.
... Is anyone opposed?
... Hearing none, we've closed issue 30.
... Naming: should we change naming from RIF:URI to
RIF:IRI?

Harold: yes to Chris's
suggestion

Michael: Maybe should be
RIF:ID

Harold: But in XML, ID has
another meaning. Any term might have another meaning.

Sandro: Are we naming things by
serialization or by thing identified by serialization.

<Hassan> +1 with Francois -
distinct categories should be an *option* not a requirement

<sandro> Francois: it seems
to me that what is being called "sorts" here should be call
"syntactic categories"

Chris: may not be able to push
much further with this. However, people aren't really
addressing the question: does it make sense to make the
translation more difficult.
... Perhaps need more examples of translations so that this
discussion can become more real.

<AlexKozlenkov> +OS

Sandro: Is anyone opposed to
OS?

<Francois> What is OS?

<PaulaP> overlapping
sorts

OS = overlapping sorts: same symbol can denote
any number of things.

<Harold> OS: Overlapping
sorts. Symbols uniquely denote semantic objects but these
objects themselves can be more than one thing (a function
and/or a predicate and/or an individual). This is the approach
used in common logic. A common misconception is that this is
necessarily second order, but as shown in my logic textbook
(Enderton), it is still first order.

<Francois> +q

Chris: hesitant to make decision.
What would Gary, Paul Vicent, Jos say?

<AlexKozlenkov> Hassan +1

Hassan: I don't understand OS
thing.

Description makes it sound as if we're talking
about semantic objects, but this is just a discussion of
syntax.

Hassan: OS description doesn't
make sense to me.

Chris: Difference between OS and
ONDS: ONDS --- can use same symbol syntactically, but depending
on position, can be different thing (predicate, function,
individual)

OS: unique symbol denotes object
which can be used as predicate, function, individual

Chris: admits that perhaps the
description could use clarification

Dave: Difference is somewhat akin
to difference between OWL full and OWL DL.

OWL full : if you say x and y are equivalent,
classes and predicates have same extensions

Dave: (check) but OWL DL: even if
x and y are equivalent, doesn't make claims about equivalent
extensions (???)

Chris: (elaborating on Dave's
example): so you can say P=Q for individuals, but doesn't say
anything about the predicates P and Q being equivalent.

<Francois> -q

Chris: OWL 1.1 spec has good
explanation of this issue.
... people either seem to be ambivalent or expressing support
for OS approach.

<AlexKozlenkov> We probably
need a good test case

Sandro: there appears to be much
confusion about this issue, so we need to look at test
cases.

Chris: Would be good to gather
some examples, and especially what this means for
translation.
... Any volunteers for examples of ONDS translation into both
OS and DS?

<Harold> Should we use this
occasion to liaise/work with colleagues from OWL 1.1?

Chris: Hearing no volunteers,
will send out email msg to recruit volunteers